So, not perfect but good enough. How exactly? An illustration please. Thank you. — TheMadFool

I've given you the example of the K-T-B root in Hebrew. If that doesn't help illustrate how the whole concept works, I don't know how to help you.

The problem with that is one has to first have a context and for that some words have to be understood but then that's precisely the problem. See below:

1. Rd Ppl = Red Apple OR Rude People. — TheMadFool

Again: This does NOT work with the english language. You're completely overlooking the radical differences between language systems as well as the lack of vocabulary in ancient language. The Tanakh only contains about 8700 distinct words and about 2000 roots. Modern hebrew has about 33.000 words.

English in comparison is estimated to historically have over a million word definitions. About 170.000 words are currently in active use.

Speech is being rendered into words but...a key component of speech - vowels - that seem to me absolutely necessary to distinguish words with identical consonants are missing. Why? — TheMadFool

It worked to some degree. Not perfectly though - that's why in this day and age most of these languages use some form of indication for what vowel goes where. But you can't compare it to the english language. For starters, there are far fewer words with identical consonants and when they are the same, they're usually somehow related to another.

Have a look at semitic roots.
Most hebrew words have a triliteral root consisting of three consonants.

Here's the K-T-B root so you get an idea what this looks like in praxis. Note the similarity between them.

Also there's the aspect of context. I can even _____ out whole _____ and you'll still ____ what I'm saying.

So, you're saying the correct vowels would be inserted by the reader who would know that based on...??? — TheMadFool

Based on the spoken word.

This was basically the standard some thousand years ago. The Greek changed this system because apparently, the words they were using would have been too disambiguous.

This system of writing is generally called abjad.

Keep in mind that only scholars knew how to read and write. It's not that written works weren't meant to be understood - but a majority of people simply couldn't.

Either way,

1. It was assumed that the correct vowels were universally known. Ergo, there would be no confusion. — TheMadFool

this was certainly true. Until we got ourselves a few words too many at least.

The anatomical theory explains the “total” objective of the game but has difficulty explaining the “null” objective. This is where creativity and lateralisation comes into play. — Benj96

The process of both "null" and "total" appears to me as the exact same one. In the case of null, you will still follow a chain of associations the same way you would with "total". The difference is that "null" has an added layer: Instead of just taking the chain of association as it is, you put it through a filter: You remove the associations that you deem as most common from the chain.

You can also call it "Wadden Sea". — SolarWind

"Wadden Sea" describes a specific geographical location.
Wadden Sea is tidal flat. Tidal flat is not Wadden Sea.

Another example: Does the tidal flat belong to the land or to the sea? I think fuzzy logic is appropriate here. — SolarWind

The definition of tidal flat is "essentially horizontal and commonly muddy or marshy land that is covered and uncovered by the rise and fall of tides"

There is no fuzziness here. Tidal flat is land.

All you can say is essentially, Person A contradicted himself, if he was in a framework where that's a contradiction. — InPitzotl

And that is, as @TheMadFool pointed out an issue of definition. Language is a framework shared amongst all humans. Somewhere humanity agreed upon some arbitrary sequences of noises/signs to have a certain meaning. There are also rules of how these words need to be ordered and structured to make any sense. It's defined as such:

"the principal method of human communication, consisting of words used in a structured and conventional way and conveyed by speech, writing, or gesture."

And if I do not adhere to this framework of language, then I am simply not using language.
You may say, nothing is stopping me from saying something like "The Am philoso I I am you philosoph I the you the".
But this doesn't make any sense. It doesn't pertain to structure and convention. It's not language. I'm just making random noises which happen to have a meaning in the framework of language (which I'm not using).

Likewise, in the framework of language, as per definition of the words "Trump is an asshole and is a nice guy" doesn't make any sense. So this too, isn't even language. It's just a sequence of signs that seems to convey meaning - but doesn't.

What is the use of insisting on binary logic if I cannot apply it in many cases? In politics there are many questions where binary logic is of no use. — SolarWind

You have a bit of a misconception here. Boolean logic is not used to answer questions but to validify statements - the answers to the questions. Epistemology of course plays a role in this and so - knowledge being something subjective and personal - whether a statement is true or false may differ from person to person.

A system of logic mustn't contradict itself within it's own framework. There's no need to be consistent across different frameworks though.

The statement "It's 12pm in the USA" doesn't contradict "It's 12am in China" because the logic systems use a different framework (in this case being the timezone).

Person A may say "Trump is an asshole" but can not say "Trump is a nice guy" at the same time because that would be a contradiction within the framework.

Person B may say "Trump is a nice guy" regardless of Person A because their opinions are different frameworks.

You wouldn't have to take down all of the servers either. This is just a guess but I'd imagine half of them would be enough to bring the internet to it's knees. — Hermeticus

I'll correct myself here after reading an article. It looks like much less is needed. Facebook platforms being down caused 30x more traffick on one of the biggest DNS providers Cloudflare.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/october-2021-facebook-outage/

It may not have been very apparent because we're talking milliseconds here but essentially, Facebook & Co being offline slowed down the whole internet. Everytime one tries to access one of the platforms, a request is sent to the DNS server. The server tries to resolve the name, takes a little while, fails and throws the user an error. The big problem are actually apps and the internet of things. While a human may try a couple of times before accepting the fact that the target site is unreachable, apps will more or less constantly spam their requests.

Before the common peasants employed the term gentleman, it was exclusively used by nobility. The theme of the gentleman always was superiority. Originally, superiority by birth - later it became superiority by virtue. I think this shows to this day and anyone who desperetaly tries to identify and present themselves as a gentleman likely has a superiority complex hidden somewhere inside them.

It shows in this discussion as well. Be it pro- or anti-vaccination. There is nothing gentle in this approach. It's all about denouncing the other which in turn pronounces ones own superiority.

When do the gloves come off? I think force only ever is justified in self-defense. This is not a case of self-defense though. Vaccination offers protection to the vaccinated, hence there is no need for the vaccinated to go ballistic against the unvaccinated.

Non-resolution of the US debt ceiling impasse is both more likely and would be more devastating. — Wayfarer

I don't think so. Surely the US economics have a big impact on global economics but it doesn't compare to the whole internet shutting down for a day. While this scenario would be worse for the US, it wouldn't be worse for the global economy.

So the internet does have a weak spot, an Achilles heel, a HQ. I was under the impression that with all these techies constantly admonishing us for not having a backup for our e-data files som computer-wiz would've done something about it. No, huh? — TheMadFool

Well, not quite. 13 servers ought to be redundant enough. Furthermore, these are more like "super-servers". It uses a system called Anycast - there's 13 main adresses but a total of over 1400 nodes. Your ISP routes you through the shortest path and off into the world wide web you go.

It's near impossible to murder the internet - I just wanted to highlight that there is a possibility. You wouldn't have to take down all of the servers either. This is just a guess but I'd imagine half of them would be enough to bring the internet to it's knees.

There is no single ‘internet’. The whole system is built in such a way that the vital bits are replicated in many different locations. To take it down all of them would have to be disabled. — Wayfarer

I was just wondering about that. Are there some core servers that run the show? — TheMadFool

There are 13 DNS root servers that map the internet. If those are gone it's Bye-Bye internet. Other than that everything else is quite replaceable.

The entire internet shutting down would be quite a big deal. Economists would probably label it the darkest day in human history. Major loses for all the companies generating revenue through the web. I'd imagine stock markets (including all the cryptos) would crash quite gloriously. Important infrastructure would no longer be reachable - banking, cash terminals, some health and insurance services. Big troubles for logistics. And last but not least a lot of panic and "Help! I don't know what to do with my time."

In science fiction? — Daemon

I'm not gonna repeat myself forever.

But computers don't have sensations, they don't make associations, they don't use representations. — Daemon

If we're not talking about hypotheticals then the answer is obviously no, AI can not understand like humans do. — Hermeticus

If we were to talk in hypotheticals:

Sensation

The physical principles behind these sensors and the senses of our body are literally the same. — Hermeticus

We already have this.

Association

The difference is in the signal that is sent thereafteand how the signal is processed. — Hermeticus

We don't have this yet, hence I raised the point of artificial brain.

And as for representations - computers are literally built on it. They're a representational system. Everything you see on your browser is a representation of a programming language. The programming language is a representation of another programming language (machine code). Machine code is a representation of bit manipulation. Bits are a representation of electric current.

We can't, but this is science fiction, not philosophy. I love science fiction, but that's not what I want to talk about here — Daemon

Well, we're talking about understanding and you made your premise experience. I've argued that it's absolutely possible for an AI to have the same experiences we have with our senses and that it's merely a question of how the content of these experiences are processed. If we're not talking about hypotheticals then the answer is obviously no, AI can not understand like humans do.

If you just want to talk about what understanding in general is, I'm totally with @TheMadFool here. Understanding is mapping. Complex chains of association between sensations and representations.

But this can't be done without using the brain! — Daemon

The difference is in the signal that is sent thereafter and how the signal is processed. — Hermeticus

I have a hard time imagining that AI will ever get a good grip on these concepts. — Hermeticus

If and how this could possibly translate to machines perceiving emotion is beyond me. — Hermeticus

It's hard to picture an artificial brain because we don't even fully understand how our brains work. It's a matter of complexity. Our understanding of it is getting better and better though. On what basis can we say that an artificial brain wouldn't be possible in the future?

A camera does not see. A thermometer does not feel heat and cold. A pressure sensor does not feel pressure. — Daemon

The physical principles behind these sensors and the senses of our body are literally the same. The difference is in the signal that is sent thereafter (and even then, both signals are electric) and how the signal is processed.

It goes way further than that though. The field of bionic prosthetics has already managed to send all the right signals to the brain. There are robotic arms that allow the user to feel touch. They are working on artificial eyes hooked up to the optic nerve - and while they're not quite finished yet, the technology already is proven to work.

That is lumpen materialism. There is a reason why all living beings, even very simple ones, cannot be described in terms of chemistry alone. — Wayfarer

When we talk about what is, it's easiest to speak in terms of materialism. If two processes are comparable, one biological, one mechanical, why shouldn't I be able to compare them? As I said:

I think it's a question of how machinized someone perceives our human organism. — Hermeticus

I was going to agree with "Living beings can not be described in terms of chemistry alone" but the more I think about it - I'm not so sure. Your example doesn't make any sense to me either way. What do you think DeoxyriboNucleic Acid is, if not chemistry?

Each time I pair a word or phrase with its translation, I put that into the "translation memory". The CAT tool sometimes surprises me with its translations, it can feel quite spooky, it feels like the computer understands. — Daemon

It's not unlike what we humans do. Our "translation memory" simply is the mental act of association. I take input/sensation A (I see, feel or taste an apple) and link it to input/sensation B (the word apple in auditory or visual form).

Experience is the crucial element the computer lacks. — Daemon

For example, to understand fundamental concepts like "up" and "down", "heavy" and "light", you need to have experienced gravity. — Daemon

He can't understand what it is to "want" something through ostensive definition. He understands that through experiencing wanting, desire. — Daemon

Machines can experience physical phenomena that reflects our perception - from cameras to thermometers, pressure and gyro sensors - none of our senses can't be adopted digitally. This means that fundamental concepts like "up" and "down", "heavy" and "light" can indeed be experienced by computers.

Your last example though is a whole different phenomena and this is where it gets interesting. Qualia - emotional sensation like happiness, sadness, desire and alike can not be found and measured in the physical realm. I have a hard time imagining that AI will ever get a good grip on these concepts.

I think it's a question of how machinized someone perceives our human organism. Afterall, the statement that there's no physical phenomena corresponding to emotions is false. Strictly speaking, it's all chemistry - qualitatively and quantitatively measurable. If and how this could possibly translate to machines perceiving emotion is beyond me. All I know is that it does raise one of the most interesting philosophical questions that I have seen in Sci-Fi: If a robot seemingly acts and feels like a human, how are we to know whether they are merely acting or if they actually engage with sensation and stimulation in the same way we do?

Can't take it with you. Lost are those who call circumstance reality. Contrary to popular belief, you actually can make a horse drink. Though it usually drowns. — Outlander

Not sure what you're trying to express or what the point of the horse anecdote is.

You either beat each other to death or work together and treat others as equals to address these needs. There are no other options, aside from enslaving others. — Outlander

I think the point of the OP is that our current society despite libertarian appearances entails more of the latter than the former. The argument for capitalism is that everyone has the possibility to "make it"- but in many cases the hierarchies of economics are so far apart from bottom to top that the bottom will feel like slaves to this system. There are people that lack some of the most basic needs in life while others have abundance to sustain thousand of lifes all for themselves.

Neoclassical economists (mainstream) use the profit motive as an axiom to build economic models. Making money is seen as the single purpose for all business. — Wheatley

Money has completely distorted the value of things. As I grew up, I found it stranger and stranger that people are spending all their life chasing money instead of trying to use money to not need money anymore. Work is necessary, but strictly speaking I merely need food, water and shelter - once I have the basics down, I can basically do what I want.
But instead of relying on nature directly (for instance, by tending to a garden and growing our own food), most of us take a detour through the medium of money.


I don't think the system is right. It made sense to some degree. A currency that represents the value of goods makes perfect sense. But in our day and age, the currency IS the value. This is backwards.

On the note of resources and such: While population is growing, production needs to grow as well. In this regard, the growth of businesses and companies is perfectly sensible as well. However, again the issue is that the representation (money) has become detached from the thing itself. Hence businesses aim to maximize profit rather than their use for society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW_pyramid

"Typically information is defined in terms of data, knowledge in terms of information, and wisdom in terms of knowledge".

So, I define my joy as the feeling that I get when someone punches me in the face, that punch on the face will magically transform in terms of the accompanying sensation into something else? — TheMadFool

Precisely. Masochists do exactly that, associating pleasure with pain.

So, a person who's being tortured severely is unhappy because he can conceive of a world in which he isn't tortured? — TheMadFool

Yes. More accurately, the person is unhappy because they knew happiness before. You've actually inquired about this just earlier.

The yin-yang are complementaries entwined with each and not separate, discrete, "opposites". — 180 Proof

This is (non)duality. This is yin-yang. Without knowing suffering, I can not know happiness. Without knowing happiness, I can not know suffering. Nothing has any meaning on it's own. Everything needs a complementary to put it into context.

Some of us aren't. — TheMadFool

I don't understand how anyone wouldn't be "in the is". "Ises" as you say, that what is, is simply reality - or do I misunderstand something about the words you use?

But, are they? if your claims are not objective then why are you trying to convince me of your views. — TheMadFool

I'm not saying my claim is not objective. I'm saying objectively, good and evil are subjective.

That is an extrinsic benefit. — 180 Proof

Care to explain how survival is an extrinsic benefit?

Surviving =/= thriving (i.e. surviving is necessary but not sufficient for thriving). To thrive – self-cultivate – is an intrinsic benefit. — 180 Proof

Still means that extrinsic benefits have been adopted for intrinsic purposes (thriving rather than surviving in this case).

Helping a dying person die doesn't raise your standing with the dead. — 180 Proof

Very good point. But in regards to myself: The reason I'd help a dying person die is because I think it's "the right thing to do". I think it's the right thing to do because if I ever were in the same situation, I'd hope someone would help me die in the same way.

To be clear with my point here: I don't really think there is any good behaviour that is good just for the sake of being good. I may act as a saint throughout my life and never expect anything in return. Why? To make the world a better place? Why do that? Because >I< want to live in a better world.

Even the Buddhists who have this sort of expectation to be selfless do this - but they do this in a brilliant way. Instead of assuming that >I< am the self, everything is the self. So if one is to truly adopt this idea, their inherent selfishness is still caring for the entirety of the world.

So, I could then define your joy and suffering away? — TheMadFool

No, you can not define my joy and suffering away because my joy and suffering depend on my definition.
You can however, define your own joy and suffering away.

Remember, morality is about oughts and not ises, the latter is a cause of much dissatisfaction (dukkha). — TheMadFool

You've got it the wrong way around, Fool! There is no dukkha in what is. Dukkha arises from desire and expectation - the oughts.

Again, you're flip-flopping between oughts and ises. Because you're stuck in the ises, the oughts appear extreme. — TheMadFool

We're all stuck in the ises. Ises is what is. Oughts is dreamland. It doesn't exist. Ises is what is important. If I can't run an ought through any given scenario, what's the point of having an ought?

This doesn't make sense. God is a threat to the devil. So, is God bad? A gang of thieves can trust each other, are they good? — TheMadFool

You're just demonstrating the subjectivity of good and evil. Of course the devil thinks God is evil and of course the thieves think that their mates are good.

Reciprocity? Cooperation? Yeah, for extrinsic benefits only like e.g. social stability, deescalating violent conflict, trade. Mere (social) animality; not moral, I think, until the benefits saught are instrinsic, or self-cultivating, via (non-reciprocal) practice e.g. sympathetic altruity. A meta-cognitive breakthrough after maybe dozens of millennia of human eusociality. — 180 Proof

I'm not even sure where the line between intrinsic and extrinsic is.

What's the most baseline intrinsic behaviour there is? Survival, no?
So all these extrinsic benefits were adopted for an intrinsic purpose.

Can altruism ever be non-reciprocal? Even if there is no immediate return - helping others inevitably raises my standing with the helped. Does Hillel urge us not to hate for the sake of goodness, or does he urge us because he does not want to encounter hate himself?

Nice! However, I fail to see how a death match, which life is, can be thought of as "...all was well in the Garden of Eden..."? — TheMadFool

That's simply due to how we define good and evil. Or rather it's due to us defining death as evil. The other view is that death is a part of life just like anything else and there is nothing inherently evil about it. Then rather than a death match, we're suddenly looking at a game of life.

Furthermore, I believe morals fail immediately once we take them to the extreme.

Is it okay if I eat another human being when I'm hungry? No.
Is it okay if I eat another human being when I'm starving? Maybe.
Is it okay if I eat another human being when we're both starving? Yes! Why not? Otherwise we'll both die.

This being my set of morals. I'm sure many of you have different views - which further showcases that these concepts are very limited and are only practical to some degree, in some certain context.

we're part of nature and if nature somehow made us think of morals, the idea that "morals are an entirely human concept" doesn't make sense. — TheMadFool

You're right of course that theoretically everything is "natural" as we all stem from nature. However mind is a different matter - in that regard you're also right about morals originating from an entirely different world - the world being the fictionary world of mind. Morals do not exist just like how any other thought concept doesn't actually exist. The lion will submit to what actually is: To weapons, to gravity, even a loud noise may scare him off. But ethics and morals aren't something that actually is. You'll have a hard time talking the lion out of eating you just because "it's wrong". To the lion, what you're saying doesn't mean anything. When we talk about morals and ethics, it doesn't mean anything to anyone other than humans. Hence "There are no morals in nature"

My approach to most topics is very similar: Where did it come from and why do we have it?

The origin of morals, as I see it, is very clearly logic. Back in the good old day we used to live in packs (we still do but differently). As social animals do, we look after our own pack. This is not yet moralistic, it's simply logical. The group is valuable because it improves chances of survival. The individual is valuable because it strenghtens the group.

The rise of morals as a concept is just as logical. Eventually, as our cultures and our numbers evolved, you'd have increased encounters with other groups of humans. The problem is that the weapons we employed for hunting worked perfectly well against us as well. Humans relatively early on became the biggest threat to humans. In nature however, there is one exception to predator killing prey: When food is available in abundance. When the belly is full even the lion becomes harmless. And so there were times where humans didn't have to fight each other. And over the course of thousands of years, our food situation drastically improved.

So tribe started connecting with tribe and eventually humans realized the benefits of coorporation beyond their own tribe. This was the birth of both trade and morals. First of all it was bad to kill other tribesmen because it would provoke the tribe into war. Secondly in order to engage in trade, we'd better know if we can trust our opposite or not. The necessity for a system to measure the trustworthiness as well as the threat of others arose.

This is good and evil:
Good, someone who I can trust. Bad, someone who is a threat to me.

Everything else, the varied aspects of morals and ethics simply evolved from there.

The first step towards a solution to a problem is to realize that there is a problem. Humans have, in a sense, awakened to the fact that all is not well in the garden of Eden. — TheMadFool

It also works the other way around: The first step to creating a problem is thinking there is a problem. All was well in Garden of Eden until humans got too cognitive.

being immoral, even in the worst possible sense, even though it breaks moral laws does not violate a law of nature. — TheMadFool

Morals are an entirely human concept. There are no morals in nature. Again - this is only a problem if you make it one. Either all is just or all is unjust. It's our complicated set of morals that we made up which puts us somewhere inbetween.

In traditional theology and metaphysics, the natural was largely conceived as the evil, and the spiritual or supernatural as the good. — Max Horkheimer, The Eclipse of Reason

I don't think this is true. Nature was respected, revered but also feared. Primarily, nature was seen as the enabler of life. All of the first Gods of mankind were aspects of nature deified.

That’s the symbolic meaning of the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ in my view. — Wayfarer

Indeed. They ate the apple and became self-aware thereafter, immediately proceeding to cover themselves up because they became ashamed of their naked bodies.

I think in a way it also illustrates that human morals and ethics are not exactly in accordance to nature. In the story, it is proclaimed that the humans are in God's image and that his creation is good. Although they were made that way, they dressed themselves, disagreeing that how they were - naked - was good.

On a lot of points I'm with @James Riley on this.

I'm a bit of a nature guy myself. At the very least I know that I have a tendency to get into bad habits if I'm surrounded by too much comfort. I've noticed it for myself: the more primal my conditions get the more functional I become as a person. Living in a jungle somewhere in Asia over a year in fact was the most profound and life changing experience I've made in my life.

I think generally we do two essential things as humans: Trying to survive and seeking stimulation. The first one is rather obvious for any living being, the second is to some degree uniquely human (some animals will do certain things to entertain themselves, none at the level which humans do though). I reckon our obession with any form of stimulation is caused by how trivial survival has become these days. With hunter-gathering, survival itself served as the stimulation. The amount of awareness necessary to be a succesful hunter is akin to the awareness a Buddhist teacher demands from his students. Agriculture in contrast is much less engaging. Tending to fields is a mindless task. It demands very little awareness and offers very little stimulation.

Our cultural evolution has always been like that. With a decrease in effort comes a surplus in time - but with a surplus of time comes an increased demand for stimulation. The evolutionary steps are entirely based on each other. The surplus we got with each step was necessary for the next step, though I'd say certain steps have more gravity than others.

Fire was essential but I don't think it changed our life style enormously. Basically it drastically increased our efficiency as hunter-gatherers. The middle-step between hunter-gathering and agriculture was much more impactful: The herding of animals. People still lived a nomadic lifestyle but the necessity to hunt fell flat. Instead, they were taking their herd from pasture to pasture and gathered along the way. The step to agriculture then probably was a direct consequence: The herders found certain spots that were especially favourable in supporting life. Instead of marching all over the land they localized to places where both herding and gathering was at it's best (this wasn't possible as hunter-gatherers because it didn't allow for good hunting). And then it went from there. Humans had a fixed routine with plenty of time to spare and began on their neverending quest to find something to do beyond survival.

Do I think agriculture was a mistake? Yes and no. It's obvious that agriculture was necessary for everything we have today. Surviving is an endless task - but we made the task trivial. In return, we were left with another endless task. Since most of us don't have to do anything RIGHT NOW to stay alive, it leaves us constantly planning what's next. This is like a maze with no end because from one moment to the next, there are endless possibilities to what can happen in the world.

Put it that way: Evolutionary agriculture makes perfect sense because we massively improved our survivability. On an individual level though, we opened up Pandora's box. Biologically we're meant to live in nature and do survival. We've left our natural habitat and it confuses us. This shows in the rise of mental health problems people struggle with today.

I am in a similar position, something along the lines of a faithful agnostic.
I have a similar reason to be inclined to believe as well - although my reason is not any sort of human supremacy but the vast diversity of life itself and the mind-boggling process life undertakes from singular particles in the beginning of the universe to full conscious being.

I think that it is a spectrum with no clear answers. It partly depends on how what one considers as being 'God'. — Jack Cummins

I can also strongly agree with this. We're very much culturally opinionated of what 'God' ought to be. Many of these cultures promoted the idea that god is an entity, a person of sorts, for a long time. This may be but this may also not be. God doesn't necessarily have to be conscious at all, at least not in a way we understand. My idea of god goes more along the line of being sub- or hyper-conscious (depending how you want to look at it). Similar to how an entire ecosystem isn't exactly conscious - but is formed of conscious parts - and as a whole forms something that is highly intelligent.

So I ask, what is the reason for this vast discrepancy between us and all else in our world? Of course, the easy and most obvious answer is that there is none. Whether it be coincidental or inevitable, humans are the way they are and that's the way it is. — Jerry

On this matter, I'll just quote what I already wrote today:

Intelligence also depends on context. An engineer may know everything about his machines but throw him out into the savanna and he's completely useless. That is not a question of capability but knowledge. In this case the specific knowledge of how to survive in the savanna.

Also I'll stress this with every human vs animal comparison because it is so essential: The biggest difference which has allowed us to take a dominant role on this planet is over 8000 years of complex symbolic language. The reason that we have this is because our survival knowledge reached a point (agriculture) where survival became much easier and we could focus on other things — Hermeticus

What can you infer from you being the only one at the venue. You're too early, you're the first or you're too late, you're the last. You being alone can have two diametrically opposite meanings. — TheMadFool

Option 3: You're the only guest that is going to the party at all.
I'll agree with @180 Proof though, we're not alone in our intelligence.

Intelligence also depends on context. An engineer may know everything about his machines but throw him out into the savanna and he's completely useless. That is not a question of capability but knowledge. In this case the specific knowledge of how to survive in the savanna.

Also I'll stress this with every human vs animal comparison because it is so essential: The biggest difference which has allowed us to take a dominant role on this planet is over 8000 years of complex symbolic language. The reason that we have this is because our survival knowledge reached a point (agriculture) where survival became much easier and we could focus on other things.

I quite like the Oxford definition of art.

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

The "application of human creative skill and imagination" here is key imo. I understand it not just as the process of creating art but also as the process of perceiving art. Anything that creates a sensory stimulation could be deemed art but in order for it to be art, someone has to consider it as art.

the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference — Merriam-Webster dictionary

Both logic and ideals are developed over time through experience. A baby learns through intuition - so both rational as well as idealistic thinking is attained through intuition.

I'm not sure why sensory observation would be furthest away though. My intuition tells me that while matter may not be THE essence, it certainly comes off as quite essential.

I like to think of some drugs (particularly psychedelics) as allowing a shortcut to states that can otherwise be achieved through meditation practice. — Xtrix

I think so too. It seems reasonable enough to me that humanities first experiences with mysticism and spirituality was due to the consumption of drugs as well. Long before we started practicing agriculture shamans were roaming nature, experimenting with herbs, discovering medicinical and hallucinogenic plants alike. The ritual use of these drugs seemed to have a strong impact on religious belief.

Interestingly, the practice of meditation and awareness is what may protect one from the pitfalls of drug use. The effects of psychedelics can be absolutely overwhelming. It's easy to see how people get addicted to these sensations that make most other sensations look pale in comparison. Sensible use then boils down to what those eastern philosophies teach us: Enjoy (the drug) but never chase it.

I do wonder how our society would look like today if we hadn't ever started a war on drugs.

Knowledge of good prevents one from committing acts. They committed those acts because they did NOT know what good and evil were. — AlienFromEarth

This doesn't make any sense at all. As @TheMadFool says with his not so accurate but lovely quote:

I sinned, not towards an end, but because I loved the sin — Some saint (forgot his name)

Also you contradict yourself with it.

There is no lower level of instinctual knowledge, than to know what good and evil are. — AlienFromEarth

If knowing good and evil is instinctual, then not knowing what good and evil is would be impossible. Hence, as "knowledge of good prevents one from committing acts" there is no evil in this world.


On the most basic level though, I see a problem with your definition of evil.

That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people. — AlienFromEarth

What is justifiable and what is not is completely subjective. Hence by your definition, what is evil and what is not is completely subjective, ruling out "pure evil".

It seems at the macro-level, at least, the more likely events occur more of the time.
At the scale of the very small, that rule seems violated. — tim wood

I think that goes along rather well with what I said.

So when we throw the dice in reality, what we're looking at is not just the wavefunction of the dice - but the wavefunction of our throw, the wavefunction of the air, the wavefunction of the table, etc. — Hermeticus

It's obvious then that a higher number of influencing factors (more particles interacting at macro-level) is more determinable than very few, or no influencing factors (micro-level, singular particles).

There nothing is determined except the evolution of the wavefunction. If we throw a quantum dice, each outcome has still 1/6 chance of appearing. But the process leading to an outcome is simply not there. — Zweistein

This is if we look at the quantum dice as an isolated system. There are no isolated systems in reality though (except maybe the universe itself - we don't know).

So when we throw the dice in reality, what we're looking at is not just the wavefunction of the dice - but the wavefunction of our throw, the wavefunction of the air, the wavefunction of the table, etc. interacting with each other, is it not?

Now, I'm a donkey when it comes to math but I'd imagine if we were to add up all those wavefunctions that interact with our dice, the result would be something like the determination of our dice throw, no?

I think apokrisis does a great job at describing my observation and raises a very important point in the discussion about "finding yourself" vs "losing yourself".

The “real you” in modern society is the attentional one, not the habitual one. The thinking and self-questioning one, not the one lost in the simple unexamined flow of everyday social relations. — apokrisis

It's also been pointed out that most people play a role, that there are different versions of who people think they are. Carl Jung describes this as persona - the psychological mask we wear that allows us to hold an identity of our own. In fact, we have a good few of those masks - perhaps even one for each individual social interaction we partake in. We may hold a general idea of "who we are" but we're prone to adapt to any given social situation. Interestingly we go so far that we do parts of this subconsciously - which I'd say belongs to the realm of Flow - like how we mimick body language or change the pitch in our tone accordingly etc.

Now, I don't think this is phony. Some people do indeed act "fake" but generally, the act of being flexible in our behaviour and self-perception is as much "real" self as anything else. I think what's more interesting here is why something like a persona exists in the first place. Why, quite naturally without anyone telling us to do so, did we deem it necessary to construct this self-image of ourselves?

It appears to me as if the greater parts of the persona are given from the outside rather than the inside. Our first touch of identity is when we are given a name by our parents. We go on to learn about the world we live in. Our society then proceeds to teach us not just how we're ought to see the world (morals and ethics) but also how we're ought to act (get a job, earn some money, raise a family). It goes on and on and on. We categorize ourselves with attributes that society defined for us, even if they don't really work out of context - attributes like "cool", "funny", "handsome" or "brave". We take all these building blocks and assemble them in an image of self-perception that seems to suit us.

In reality, the persona we construct for ourselves says very little about us. In fact, the construction is pretty shaky to begin with. Take the foundation, the first building block given: My name says nothing about me. I don't need a name - society needs a name for me because otherwise everyone who isn't me has a hard time referring to me. This basically works for anything we establish in terms of persona. Categorizing myself as funny doesn't say anything about how much I make people laugh - but it's a useful categorization for everyone else - indicating that they might get some laughs from my company.

I suspect the reason we do create personas then is the way our brain works: We constantly categorize things so we may evaluate them. This works great for survival but can present quite a few problems with things that are intangible like our inner workings. Socially, we need a system to judge others, to know whether we can trust an individual or not. And since everyone does this to everyone, the concept of the persona arose quite naturally. It's like the business card of the self which we hand out to other people.

This is the self that is lost during flow state. It also means that "finding your true self" and "losing yourself" are the same thing. The true self in this sense is the me that does not have to rely on arbitrary categorization of predefined terms. The true self doesn't need any words at all. I'd say that's what defines it as true to begin with: It doesn't have to consider itself, no pause, no contemplation needed to think "Ah yes, this is me.". The true self simply knows, just how you simply know what to do in flow state.

On that note, I don't think "searching yourself" as many advocates of self-improvement promote is a fruitful endeavor. It's like a dog chasing his tail, never to reach his goal. It can be helpful along the process to take a close look at your persona - you'll be able to inspect your habits and eventually adjust them. But ultimately, if one is to follow the path of self-improvement to the end, the last step will be giving up on self-improvement because there comes the point where you're just circling around endlessly.

And since I already mentioned ecstasy - drugs, especially the psychedelic kind, follow much of the same recipe. In fact, those who have some experience with them may testify that drugs have the capability of evoking the most intense levels of both joy and loss of self. Not for nothing are many individuals who follow a "spiritual path" fond of drugs. And not for nothing do these eastern religion have their origin in a bunch of poets who had a tendency to get high on Soma.

Rituals, the practical part of religion seem to share that function to. Engaging in a shared activity like that may even present two opportunities at once: The absorption in the activity itself as well as the absorption in group identity.

Keep in mind that this difference may not matter. Re-education Camps — TheMadFool

How does it not? You can re-educate mind, just how AI can edit the proposed dynamic segment. You can not re-edit biology (by yourself) just like AI can not edit the fundamental programming by itself.

That would require a code, no and we're back to square one - a true AI is autonomous because we programmed it that way. Is that true independence? — TheMadFool

Does the nature of origin determine how autonomous and independent something is?
Autonomy - "having the right or power of self-government"
Independence - "the ability to care for one's self"

This thread seems to stem from this thought:

All I meant was that people are autonomous agents, they have a mind of their own and we must both respect that and factor that into our calculations. Interestingly, is free will, if present, like the misbehaving toaster, a malfunction i.e. are we breaking the so-called laws of nature? That explains a lot, doesn't it?

This has one misconception: It's impossible to break the laws of nature. Not obeying our nature is not an option. We're all build a certain way so that we're able to live at all - that is the law of nature. Likely, an AI has to be programmed a certain way so that it may run at all.

The question then is a decision rather than a contradiction:
Either we do have free will because we were biologically designed to have free will.
Or we don't have free will precisely because we were biologically designed, because there are certain fundamental laws of how we work.

I think both are perfectly viable and merely a matter of perspective. I'm mostly free in my decisions but the laws of nature provide a framework for those decisions. Either you view yourself limited by the conditions of your existence, or you view yourself free by the fact that you do exist.

Personally, I think the sensible thing - this is what the Hermetic teachings do - is to view it as a degree of one and the same thing. The difference between being locked up behind bars and enjoying ultimate freedom (whatever that means for anybody) is merely the number of choices I may take.

Firstly the "second party" itself is programmed, has a nature and secondly, this "second party" must still work via instructions which closes the loop so to speak, right? — TheMadFool

Keep in mind that we have to differentiate between biology (AI core) and mind.

All said and done, AI (artificial intelligence) is going to be a machine that will have to follow a set of instructions (code/programming) — TheMadFool

This is merely the biology. There is nothing intelligent about following a set of instructions. What defines an AI as intelligent is that it goes and makes up it's own instructions after this point. The freedom is not to control the core of it's being, just like we can not change from human to bird - but that we have freedom over our actions in the framework of a human - just like an AI has freedom in computing in the framework of the AI.